Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Maggio Vs. Williams

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 07, 1983

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

77 entries 9 linked 68 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Cronic US Supreme Court · May 14, 1984
  2. Rose Vs. Lundy US Supreme Court · Mar 03, 1982
  3. Fay Vs. Noia US Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1963
  4. Townsend Vs. Sain US Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1963
  5. Barclay Vs. Florida US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1983
  6. Gregg Vs. Georgia US Supreme Court · Jul 02, 1976
  7. Barefoot Vs. Estelle US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1983
  8. Jurek Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Jul 02, 1976
  9. Donnelly Vs. Dechristoforo US Supreme Court · May 13, 1974
  10. U.S. 46 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Maggio v. Williams
    Search
  11. U.S. 46 (1983) Maggio v. Williams
    Search
  12. a grocery store in Baton Rouge, La. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Louisiana Supreme Court. State v. Williams
    Search
  13. courts. The District Court held no hearing, but issued a written opinion denying Williams' petition. See Williams v. Blackburn
    Search
  14. of Williams' many objections to his conviction and sentence and affirmed the judgment of the District Court. Williams v. Maggio
    Search
  15. Court issued a detailed opinion in which it refused to grant the writ or to stay Williams' execution. Williams v. King
    Search
  16. Williams v. King
    Search
  17. grant stays of execution in cases where the Court of Appeals had denied a writ of habeas corpus. Barefoot v. Estelle
    Search
  18. White v. Florida
    Search
  19. U. S. 1301 , 458 U. S. 1302 (1982) (POWELL, J., in chambers) (quoting Times-Picayune Publishing Corp. v. Schulingkamp
    Search
  20. the absence of evidence warranting such an instruction, is claimed to have violated the rule established in Hopper v. Evans
    Search
  21. who opposed the death penalty at the guilt-innocence phase of Williams' trial, although proper under Witherspoon v. Illinois
    Search
  22. a substantial question and one concluded that the statements constituted reversible error. State ex rel. Williams v. Blackburn
    Search
  23. gave it full consideration in the second federal habeas proceeding. Applying the standard established in Donnelly v. DeChristoforo
    Search
  24. Williams v. Maggio
    Search
  25. had agreed to decide whether some form of comparative proportionality review is constitutionally required. See Pulley v. Harris
    Search
  26. Louisiana Supreme Court's proportionality review scheme that were identical to that raised by Williams. See Lindsey v. Louisiana
    Search
  27. James v. Louisiana
    Search
  28. Sonnier v. Louisiana
    Search
  29. U.S. 1229, rehearing denied, 463 U.S. 1249 (1983). See also Narcisse v. Louisiana
    Search
  30. asserts that his execution should be stayed because we have issued a stay in another Louisiana death case, Baldwin v. Maggio
    Search
  31. of his trial counsel, similar to those we shall resolve in two cases set for argument this Term. Strickland v. Washington
    Search
  32. recently granted a stay in a case raising a proportionality challenge to a death sentence imposed in Texas. Autry v. Estelle
    Search
  33. jury improperly Page 464 U. S. 55 relied upon other aggravating factors in reaching its verdict. See State v. James
    Search
  34. cert. denied, post, p. 908. That rule was applied by the Louisiana Supreme Court in this very case. See State v. Williams
    Search
  35. on appellate review is constitutionally permissible in the context of Louisiana's death penalty statute, see Zant v. Stephens
    Search
  36. is justified in applying a strict standard of review to this second federal habeas corpus application. See Sanders v. United
    Search
  37. of this argument, and may have deliberately chosen not to raise it in the first habeas corpus petition. See Barefoot v. Estelle
    Search
  38. type of constitutional error, I question whether it can be said that this trial was fundamentally unfair. See Rose v. Lundy
    Search
  39. penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  40. the disproportionate nature of his sentence. This afternoon, the Court will hear oral argument in Pulley v. Harris
    Search
  41. WHITE, just last month, stayed the execution of James David Autry pending our decision in Pulley. See Autry v. Estelle
    Search
  42. only a Page 464 U. S. 58 districtwide or parish-wide proportionality review in his case. See State v. Williams
    Search
  43. proportionality review is required before any constitutional death sentence may be carried out. See, e.g., Gregg v. Georgia
    Search
  44. Supreme Court of Louisiana have randomly applied proportionality reviews that are statewide in scope. See, e.g., State v. Moore
    Search
  45. State v. Narcisse
    Search
  46. to these protections is a system that includes meaningful appellate review for every death sentence. See, e.g., Zant v. Stephens
    Search
  47. the constitutionality of his death sentence which is encompassed within the questions presented to the Court in Pulley v. Harris
    Search
  48. the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had failed to subject his death sentence to any proportionality review. See Autry v. Estelle
    Search
  49. including Williams' own challenge to that review in his petition for certiorari on his first federal habeas. Williams v. Maggio
    Search
  50. See Williams v. King
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial